Standing Committee B

[Mr. Frank Cook in the Chair]

European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill

Christopher Leslie: I beg to move,
That— 
 (1) during further proceedings on the European Parliamentary and Local Elections (Pilots) Bill, the Standing Committee, in addition to its sittings on Tuesday 28th October and Thursday 30th October at 9.30 am, do meet— 
 (a) on Thursday 30th October at 2.15 pm; and 
 (b) on Tuesday 4th November at 9.00 am and 2.30 pm; 
 (2) further proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely Clause 1 (so far as not already considered), Clauses 2 to 8, the Schedule, Clauses 9 to 13, New Clauses and New Schedules, and remaining proceedings on the Bill; 
 (3) the proceedings, so far as not previously concluded, shall be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 4th November 2003.
 Good morning, Mr. Cook, and welcome to the Chair of this experienced and interesting Committee. I have a slight sense of déjà vu. The programme motion states that we will sit from 2.15 this afternoon, and that we will sit on Tuesday at 9.00 am and 2.30 pm. It also sets out the order of consideration.

Nick Hawkins: Good morning, Mr. Cook, and welcome to your chairmanship of the proceedings. As you are aware, we had an exciting but rather truncated and abortive first day because of the Government's significant defeat. I believe that that was the first time that the Government have been defeated anywhere in the House of Commons since 2001. Of course, they then used their majority in the Chamber to ram through a revised programme motion against our opposition. We object to all guillotines. To call it a programme motion is entirely inappropriate as it is simply a guillotine. We are against guillotines in principle, and we voted against them on the Programming Sub-Committee.
 For those of us who were here on Tuesday, it turned out to be a rather more exciting day than might have been expected. Similarly, the week turned out to be a rather more significant political week than expected. I am indebted to my colleagues for their support, and also to the two Liberal Democrats, the hon. Members for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), and to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart) from the Scottish Nationalist party. All Opposition Members were here, as we should have been, and the Government were defeated on the casting vote of your fellow Chairman, Mr. Cook, in the finest tradition of the Chairmen's Panel. 
 We still oppose guillotines despite the fact that we now have a revised programme motion in which the Government have given us the further time that we 
 argued for in the original Programming Sub-Committee and in the original debate on programming. We will oppose that guillotine this morning. 
 Having had two extra days, those of us who were interested have had time to peruse in detail the Electoral Reform Society's observations, which came in Tuesday's post, as I pointed out then, and the papers from the Electoral Commission. I am sure that that information will inform hon. Members from both sides of the Committee who wish to make contributions. 
 Despite those extra two days and the fact that we now have extra sittings next week, we oppose the programme motion because it is well known that the Opposition object to the way in which the Government use their huge parliamentary majority to ram through guillotines and curtail debate when they have all their people in the right place at the right time, as they did in the Chamber yesterday.

Teddy Taylor: I am sorry to interrupt. My hon. Friend says that he will oppose the programme motion, but I am still trying to understand it. It states that we will sit at 2.15 pm today. There are important debates in the Chamber today, and I want to know when I can get down there. I cannot see from the motion when we will finish tonight. Does it mean that we can go on for ever? Do we go on until 5 pm? Might we go on through the night? If we were to continue through the night, who would determine when we stop? Are the Government saying, ''Well, look, so long as we want to go on, we'll just go on''? I do not think that that is a proper way to run things when hon. Members have other obligations. Has my hon. Friend had any guidance from the Government? One of the problems that I have experienced in Parliament is that there can be secret deals.

Frank Cook: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be brief when making an intervention.

Teddy Taylor: I will be brief. Has there been a secret deal on when we are going to finish today?

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. We shall have to see. Unfortunately, Opposition Members are not in control. The Government may find that their Members do not turn up again, as on Tuesday, no doubt because of the huge doubts on the Government Benches about the legislation. Those doubts were apparent in the speech made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. Davidson) on Second Reading. Mysteriously, despite his enormous ability, expertise and interest in the legislation, he was excluded from the Committee. The Government are in control, and they are determined to ram through the legislation and to stifle debate. So we shall have to see.
 I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor) that the clashes between the timing of Committees and the business of the main Chamber are unfortunate. As he knows, at every stage, I opposed from the Front Bench the ridiculous new hours that the Government sought to inflict on the House, because they exacerbate the 
 clashes. Many of my hon. Friends have opposed them as well. 
 Although the previous Leader of the House and former Foreign Secretary, who is now on the Back Benches, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), was keen on the new sitting hours, the new part-time Leader of the House—who is also part-time Secretary of State for Wales—the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) indicated in an exchange with the shadow Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), that he was not so keen on the new Committee hours. That was in September at business questions. I was on the Front Bench, next to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, and I heard the Leader of the House say that. 
 There must be some hope—this is the only long-term comfort that I can offer my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East—that if the new Leader of the House is allowed full rein in his view, as he is not keen on early starts to Committees or the new revised hours, we may return to the more traditional hours in Committee and in the House. [Interruption.] I am delighted that the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice), supports me on the issue of hours. She is being unusually vocal for a Government Whip, and I welcome that.

Tom Harris: It is important that the hon. Gentleman's comments are corrected. There was not a Government motion to change the hours of the House, but a free vote. Members on his side of the House voted for the new hours. As he probably knows, I am one of the Members who voted for the new hours and deeply regret it. However, it was not a Government motion.

Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is quite right, but had he listened carefully to what I said, he would have been aware that I did not say that it was a Government motion. I said that it was the Labour party, and the right hon. Member for Livingston in particular, who inflicted the hours on us. The proposal was bought forward by the then Leader of the House.

Tom Harris: It was a free vote.

Nick Hawkins: Yes, it was a free vote. However, as the hon. Gentleman has openly admitted, and has said publicly in the House—I respect him for it, as he knows—he has changed his mind. I opposed the changes all the way through. I have looked carefully at which of my hon. Friends, in that free vote, supported the new hours. I am pretty sure that, of all those who voted for the new hours on the Tuesday and the Wednesday, which was the proposal carried by the narrowest majority, only six of my colleagues—out of 169—voted for it. It was carried by the votes of a huge number of Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris). He has had the great courage to admit that he was wrong, as have many of his hon. Friends.
 The issue came up again at business questions last Thursday. The hon. Gentleman may have been in the Chamber then, as I was. The new Leader of the House said that despite his personal reservations, expressed in September, on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East, we have to stick with the hours for the rest of this Parliament. When he said that, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) intervened and put her views firmly on the record. Like me, she has always opposed the new hours. She said that it was absolutely crazy for the House to carry on with an experiment that clearly is not working. I urge the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart—he knows how powerful a personality the hon. Lady is and how much a focus for leadership she could be—to join her in organising a campaign. They could lead a huge movement from the Government Back Benches and put pressure on the Leader of the House to get back to common sense. 
 Those comments are relevant to today's programme motion because of the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East. We must get away from all these clashes between Committees and the Chamber. Unfortunately, the Government are in control of the situation at present. They have a majority on the Programming Sub-Committee and on the Committee, although they did not have their expected majority on Tuesday morning. We will have to wait to find out how late we go on this afternoon. I know that you, Mr. Cook, have a personal interest in the matter, as does my hon. Friend. As for the other Conservative spokesmen and me, we would be happy to go on all night.

Peter Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that many views on the unsuitability of the new hours that hon. Members of all parties express are to do with the amount of parliamentary scrutiny that they afford? This may be the first opportunity for Labour Members to strike a blow for parliamentary scrutiny by opposing the programme motion this morning.

Nick Hawkins: My hon. Friend is right that to say that it would be an opportunity. Perhaps we can tempt the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart.

Peter Duncan: He is a reasonable man.

Nick Hawkins: He is a reasonable man. I know that not only from his speech this morning but from other speeches.

Frank Cook: Order. Perhaps I ought to remind the Committee that it is customary for hon. Members to contribute to the debate through the Chair and, not by turning their back on the Chair and addressing comments to the wall.

Nick Hawkins: I apologise for any unintentional discourtesy, Mr. Cook. I shall ensure that I speak through you and your fellow Chairman, Mr. Benton, when he is in the Chair. As you will appreciate, I was responding to the helpful intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan).
 I hope that in response to my hon. Friend's helpful suggestion, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart 
 will take this opportunity to vote with us. Perhaps we will once again see, as we did after the sitting was suspended on Tuesday, the welcome site of the Government's deputy Chief Whip, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), rushing to the Committee Corridor with a face as black as thunder to find out what on earth was going on. We on the Conservative Benches would be very pleased to see that again. 
 We shall oppose the motion not only because we succeeded in opposing the programme motion on Tuesday but because we still believe that guillotines are wrong in principle. I hope that we will be able to persuade courageous Government Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart to vote with us.

David Heath: Thank you, Mr. Cook. I welcome you to the Chair this morning. My contribution will be slightly shorter than that of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins).
 The Government were entirely humiliated on Tuesday. Their defeat in Committee was caused by the rather lackadaisical approach of some Labour Members. However, since then, we have had a coming together of minds. The Government have shown some common sense, in that at last they have been prepared to negotiate and discuss the Opposition parties' timing requirements rather than take them as read. 
 We object to programme motions when we are not consulted and are told what is an appropriate time for the Opposition to give proper scrutiny to a Bill. The Government then push through the measure on a majority vote. That is unacceptable. It is not the way to conduct effective business in this House. That is why we opposed the programme motion before the full House, and we opposed it on Tuesday for precisely the same reasons. 
 As I said, since then we have had consultation. I have made representations, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole. We said that we felt that we needed a full Committee day in addition and that we wanted normal starting times to give us the time to do our work properly. The Government, having been forced into a humiliating defeat, realised that the game was up and that they had to retreat. They have done so, and it therefore seems entirely ridiculous now to oppose what we asked for. I have to say to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that I was very surprised to see the Conservatives voting in the Chamber yesterday against an additional day of sittings for this Bill. It seems perverse to vote against the extra time allocation for which we asked.

Nick Hawkins: I was grateful for the support of the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends on Tuesday, but does he accept that our party has made it repeatedly clear in Programming Sub-Committees and in debate that we are against guillotines on principle? Of course we argued for extra time, but had we not voted against the Government's programme motion a Minister might have stood up in future and claimed that we were not against all guillotines because we had voted
 in favour of, or abstained on, a programme motion with a guillotine on this occasion. We are simply sticking to our principled position.

David Heath: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but it is rather a sophistical position because the motion before the House yesterday was to increase the amount of time by one day and had it been defeated, we should have been back to the original timetable. For that reason, we supported it then and I see no reason to oppose it now.
 I look forward to a very long sitting this afternoon, because we clearly have to get the work done and it is in the interests of Opposition Members to take as long as we need to discuss the important matters under consideration. I hope that the Government Whip and the Conservative Whip will not collude at any point to bring matters to an early end. That would be a quite disgraceful truncation of our proceedings, and I am anxious to have every opportunity to give the Bill the scrutiny required to improve it.

Teddy Taylor: I want to make two brief points. First, I hope that the Government will bear in mind the fact that their defeat happened for a good reason. We had the emergence of a popular front, with parties that differ enormously on many issues coming together because they felt so strongly on this issue. Another reason for the defeat was the absence, to which I referred, of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart. He is one of the most conscientious Members in the House, and I now understand that he was not present because he was attending the funeral of the wife of a dear colleague. Obviously, I am sorry for any misunderstanding over that. My first basic point to the Minister is that people felt very strongly, and were united in saying that the timetable was wrong.
 My second point is to ask why we cannot alter the timetable to try to get agreement between the popular front and the Government. Why can we not meet next Thursday as well, rather than have an open-ended meeting tonight? My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath is so committed to politics that he says that he will wait here all night if need be but, quite honestly, many of us have other obligations. There are other obligations in the House of Commons, and I have an obligation in Southend tonight. I am meant to be there at 9 o'clock, and I should like to be able to let my people know whether I will be there. It would be useful if the Government could either say that we will stop at 5 o'clock tonight and meet next Thursday as well, which would be ideal, or give us some idea of what work they want to get done by 5 o'clock. I should like to know. It is not satisfactory for you, Mr. Cook, and it is not satisfactory for hon. Members and their parties to be told that we might be going all night, but we have no idea. It would be far, far better if we could simply alter the timetable and have a sitting next Thursday as well.

Frank Cook: The hon. Member is a long-serving and very experienced Member, and as shrewd as anyone in the House. However, I have to point out to him that the motion before the Committee is about starting times, not finishing times. The only advice that I can offer—believe me, I shall probably be pursuing a similar line of inquiry—is that he sees the usual
 channels between now and this evening to find out just what they have in mind.

David Wilshire: Welcome to the Chair, Mr. Cook. Had you been here on Tuesday, you would have found the Government's defeat a very interesting and informative occasion.
 My office is just off the Members Lobby, so I spent Tuesday afternoon and part of yesterday—while not involved in other things to do with my party—listening for the screams coming from the Government Whips Office of those who were unable to attend the sitting or attend it on time. I hope that Government Members were not injured too badly. 
 It is interesting to note that a popular front is emerging in this Committee. I would be happy to be a member of the popular front for the liberation of the United Kingdom from this dreadful Government.

Geraint Davies: There is a leadership challenge from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin (Mr. Galloway).

David Wilshire: I would love to explore whether it was right for the Labour party to expel the hon. Member for Glasgow, Kelvin, but I am sure that you would rule me out of order, Mr. Cook, so I shall resist the temptation.

Frank Cook: I do not want to inhibit the flow of debate, and I positively encourage good humour, but for heaven's sake let us make the comments pertinent to the business in hand. Can we get on with the motion?

David Wilshire: We can. I was just about to observe that I am sure you would not have let me go down that route, Mr. Cook. You have confirmed that my assumption was absolutely correct.

Frank Cook: So you are not going to?

David Wilshire: I am not going to.
 I shall respond to some of the comments that have been made. It was suggested that a deal had been done, but it has not. If consultations had taken place, that might have avoided what happened yesterday morning. Knowing of your predicament later on that day, Mr. Cook, I indicated on behalf of the Opposition that we would do what we could to assist the Chair. However, that is not up to the Opposition, unless the Government again finds that Members cannot be bothered to turn up and we are able to defeat the motion. We would then be able to provide such assistance. 
 The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that it was wrong of us to oppose guillotine motions. If he thought about that, he would understand that it was right. He joined us in opposing a guillotine motion on Tuesday morning, and we defeated the Government and got them to concede something. The logic is always that, sooner or later, if we oppose in principle, the Government will not get a majority or they will admit that they are wrong.

David Heath: In the hon. Gentleman's slightly perverse logic, a sensible point is trying to emerge.
 Had he succeeded in defeating the programme motion before the House yesterday, the previous programme motions would still have held and the Committee would have had to finish its considerations at 4.45 this afternoon.

David Wilshire: That is giving in to the inevitable. As I said on Tuesday—I will not repeat it because it is on the record and you will say that I cannot make the same speech twice, Mr. Cook—that is exactly the problem that the Liberal Democrats are regularly faced with. They bow to the inevitable or change their policy from one day to the next.
 Guillotines are wrong in principle. We made the argument on Tuesday, and the Government have had to accept that they are wrong. Who knows how much time will be needed? The Government are defeated on a Tuesday and instead of replacing the amount of time lost on Tuesday, they immediately concede that they were wrong in their original guillotine. They have said, ''We have lost time. We'll give you your time back and we'll give you more.''

Teddy Taylor: That point is terribly important for the future and for democracy. Is my hon. Friend saying that when we have the next Conservative Government, which may well come quite soon, we shall never impose a guillotine on anything? As someone who has fought hard on some European issues and found my speeches contracted, I would say that it is a wonderful new policy and a great breakthrough for democracy. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm that no future Conservative Government will ever impose a guillotine. That would be a great triumph for democracy, and make me feel that my time had been well spent.

David Wilshire: Policy on these matters is made by the leader of the party. I am sure that when we have a new leader, my hon. Friend will ask what his policy is on such matters. The only thing I can say at the moment is that the hon. Gentleman and the Committee know what I believe to be right. I have been on these Committees over the past 17 years, and I can remember often being lectured by Labour Members on the inequities of guillotines, because they never believed in them. Lo and behold, they are now the arch users of them.

Pete Wishart: This part of the popular front stands firm on the issue of guillotine motions. We shall support the hon. Gentleman in the Division. We also oppose guillotine motions as a matter of principle, unless we see a compelling reason why it should be put in place. He can rely on my support.

David Wilshire: That is music to my ears. The hon. Gentleman may or may not know that I have a soft spot for the SNP—[Interruption.] There is a far better reason for that than party politics. When pairing was allowed, my pair was a member of the SNP, so I have a soft spot for the party and fond memories.
 Despite what the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome says, I believe that guillotine motions are wrong in principle.

Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend standing?

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Derek Conway) said that his poodle might be standing. If there were to be a contest, the hon. Gentleman's poodle would do far better than I would. Even if I were proposed, I would not find a seconder, so I am not standing.
 In principle, guillotines are wrong. It prejudges what will happen in the Committee. We do not know at the outset what issues will emerge. We do not know what mistakes we shall find in the drafting. From my experience of other Committees, there is usually at least one. We do not know what the debates will yield. How can we say at the beginning that we need four sittings? My opposite number thought that four sittings were enough. We were never told why, and I pointed out that I was against that, but four sittings it was. Immediately we had trouble, we were offered more. The principle that there is not enough time is already established. The reason why I shall vote against the motion is that I have no confidence that the new number of sittings is adequate. On that basis, the principle must be upheld. If Labour Members believe in democracy and proper scrutiny of the Government of the day—of any political persuasion—they will vote with us. 
 Question put:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 6.

Question accordingly agreed to.

David Wilshire: On a point of order, I have been told off many times for taking off my jacket before the Chair has given me permission to do so. That is what I wanted to ask you, Mr. Cook. I have suffered for half an hour.

Frank Cook: I accept the implied rebuke. Two hon. Members have pre-empted the event, but I am pleased that the female members of the fraternity have not set such a bad example. Hon. Members may divest themselves of their upper garments if they feel uncomfortable. We have enjoyed some fun, but we must get on to the real meat of our business.Clause 1 Piloting conduct at European and local elections

Clause 1 - Piloting conduct at European

Amendment moved [28 October]: No. 17, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out paragraph (b).—[Mr. Hawkins.]

Frank Cook: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking the following amendment: No. 22, in
clause 2, page 2, line 6, leave out 'must' and insert 'may'.

Nick Hawkins: Under the benevolent chairmanship of your co-Chairman, Mr. Benton, I spoke for about 20 seconds on this group of amendments before we rose at 11.25 am on Tuesday. We have indicated that we will seek to divide the Committee on amendment No. 18, but we will not get to that Division until after dinner because we must first deal with amendment No. 17.
 To return to the thread, I was probing with amendment No. 17 because although all Members have enormous respect for the parliamentary draftsman, the meaning of subsection 1(b) is not clear, even after rereading it. Even if the Minister clearly explains what subsection 1(b) is intended to mean, I will still feel that the phraseology of the drafting is what is politely referred to as infelicitous. It is certainly unclear—I call it ''Yes, Minister'' drafting. The use of the word ''order'' in paragraphs (a) and (b) is worthy of the writers who provided the wonderful scripts for Sir Humphrey Appleby, the permanent secretary played by the late, great Sir Nigel Hawthorne, who was a wonderful actor. If he had read out such verbiage, he would have got a round of applause from the studio audience. 
 I hope that the Minister will listen to this serious point because his attention does not seem to be fully engaged. I hope that he will go back and talk to his advisers. If he cannot accept the proposal today, perhaps he will examine on Report whether it is possible to replace clause 1(1)(b) with slightly clearer wording. That is all that I am asking for. I am sure that he will have a brief explaining exactly what paragraph (b) is intended to mean, but I do not think that an ordinary member of the public would understand it at face value. It is confusing. The word ''order'' appears far too many times in the provision. It appears three times: twice with one meaning and once with another. 
 As I have said on many occasions, I am a strong supporter of the Plain English Campaign, with which I have been working for years. The Government, and those who advise them, should always look at the models provided by the campaign. I hope that the Minister will understand that this is a genuine probing amendment. I am trying to be constructive and do not wish to detain the Committee for long, but I think that we could reconsider the provision and produce clearer wording. I did not propose an alternative because I was genuinely mystified about precisely what it was intended to mean.

Tom Harris: I am not a lawyer, and, like the hon. Gentleman, I read the paragraph with a completely blank stare and little understanding of it. However, he may be wrong on one point. Laws by their nature cannot be written in plain English. He is a lawyer and must know that the language used by the draftsmen must encompass specific legal terms. Asking for the provision to be written in plain English is not particularly relevant.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's support. It is helpful to know that he is looking at the provision as blankly as I am. The fact that somebody from the Government Back Benches is similarly mystified suggests that I may be on to
 something, and it may help to persuade the Minister that the provision could do with rewriting.
 I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, however, to some extent. In the eleven and a half years that I have been in the House, I have worked with the Plain English Campaign on quite a few occasions. I have looked in particular at the kind of proposals that it has made for improving some of the most complex legislation that this House has passed—that was many years before I became an MP. When I was working as a lawyer, one of the fields in which I specialised for a number of years was particularly arcane and involved some of the most complex statute law in the Consumer Credit Act 1974. An academic of great renown, Professor Goode, drafted the original Act, but, from the minute that it was introduced in 1974, it was criticised by many practitioners for being too complex. For many years before I became an MP—from the time when I first studied law in the mid–1970s—practitioners were saying, ''Statutes like this have got to be drafted more simply if they are going to be understood by the public.'' 
 Of course, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart is right. There are certain words that have a clear legal meaning, and, as a lawyer, I want to see those words used correctly. However, there is no reason why minds should not be concentrated—that it what Committee stages are all about—on making the law as clear as possible, while not ignoring the significance of legal terms of art.

Peter Duncan: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of our concerns, inasmuch as plain English is patently not being used, relates to the cumulative effect of our suspicion that the Bill has arrived at the worst moment and is being rushed through as a result of the guillotine motion that we have regrettably agreed, when the provisions could have been incorporated into earlier European legislation this year? Perhaps plain English would have sorted that out and not created such an air of suspicion in the eyes of the public.

Nick Hawkins: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He makes a valid point. As he knows, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and I criticised the indecent haste with which the Bill was being rushed through. I have used that phrase before and I will use it again: the Government are trying to press ahead with the Bill with indecent haste.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale and I do not know how much pressure there was. However, I was certainly informed that there was great concern among those on the Government Benches—among Ministers and Whips—that there was going to be a huge legislative backlog this Session because of the pressure being put on those who were doing the drafting, particularly in Home Office and constitutional affairs matters. My hon. Friend will be well aware that there has been a huge raft of Home Office legislation in the past few years, both under the former Home Secretary—the now Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the right hon. Member for Blackburn 
 (Mr. Straw)—and the current Secretary of State for the Home Department, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett). More Home Office Bills have been announced in the past few Queen's Speeches and considered in the past few Sessions than ever before. The number is at an all-time record. 
 The Government keep getting it wrong: the current Home Secretary has reversed almost everything that his predecessor introduced because it was clearly failing. This has placed a huge pressure on drafting. The Opposition can never tell how much pressure is being brought to bear, but all I can say is that we heard that the Government were very concerned about having to rush their legislation because there was too much pressure on drafting. 
 The Minister may or may not comment on this when he responds to the debate, but I hope that he will understand that we are genuinely trying to use this Committee as Committees should be used—to improve the legislation. That is why I said that the amendment is probing. I have not suggested my own wording to replace the paragraph, because I simply want the Government to reconsider it and return with something better on Report. I hope that I can at least get that point across to the Minister.

Tom Harris: I do not want to labour the point, but surely the hon. Gentleman must accept, as a former solicitor, that there are many occasions in any legislation on which there must be a balance between plain English and legal accuracy, and that this may well be one such occasion? I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will shortly enlighten the whole Committee, and that we will know exactly what the paragraph means.

Nick Hawkins: We wait to see. I will listen to the Minister with great interest, as he has an army of civil servants, which the Opposition do not have, to give him a brief. I agree that it is always a question of judgment. However, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Government, albeit without civil servants to advise him, and I have sat on the Front Bench for several years and practise as a lawyer. If we are both mystified, that suggests that there may be a reason to reconsider the paragraph now that we have drawn attention to it in Committee, in the way that we are supposed to do in Committee, so that we end up with clearer and better legislation. The hon. Gentleman and I are trying to do our job so that we can persuade the Minister to talk to his officials and make the paragraph clearer. [Interruption.] The Minister says that he has got the point.
 Amendment No. 22 relates to clause 2 and to an issue that arises regularly. We often have debates about whether a clause should say ''must'' or ''may''. Clause 2(1) currently states: 
''If the Secretary of State makes an order under section 1 (the main order) he must also make an order under this section (the pilot order).''
 I believe that the word should be ''may'' and not ''must'': making an order should not be compulsory. The Minister may say that the whole point of the legislation is that pilot orders are introduced only if 
 there is a main order. Before I tabled the amendment, I could see that there could almost be a credible case for it being compulsory rather than permissive. Clause 2(1) is much clearer than clause 1(1)(b), but it is worth probing the issue to get the Minister's explanation of it on the record. 
 My reason for tabling the amendments is to get the Minister to agree to reconsider the matter. We should always debate whether ''may'' or ''must'' is appropriate.

David Heath: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath explained why he is concerned about the opacity of subsection (1)(b), and we have entered into the eternal debate about ''must'' and ''may''. In my experience, that debate always entails the Government insisting on ''must'' if the Opposition propose ''may'', and insisting on ''may'' if the Opposition insist on ''must''. It is one of the most sterile arguments in which we ever engage.
 I accept that subsection (1)(b) may be more opaque than it would be in a perfect world. However, there is a necessary cross-reference between clauses 1 and 2 if one accepts the current architecture of the Bill. Will the Minister say why it is constructed in such a way as to have two separate orders in clauses 1 and 2? Why should there be a main order and a pilot order, one qualifying the other but dealing with essentially the same matters? Why should there not be a single order? If there were a single order, the cross-reference would not be necessary. However, if there are two orders, one needs the cross-reference, phrased in whatever way is most felicitous, and one needs the ''must'', otherwise there will be a provision for an election without the details of how it is to be conducted.

Teddy Taylor: I have a brief question. I have read subsection (1)(b) quite carefully, and my impression—the Minister can tell me if I am wrong—is that it means that if a pilot order requires certain things, but another law says that we cannot do that, subsection (1)(b) has superiority. If that is what the provisions basically do, what exactly is a ''relevant enactment''? Subsection (1)(b) seems to say that if a pilot order says that we do things in a certain way and a particular voting system applies somewhere, and yet some other law or regulation would appear to conflict, subsection (1)(b) has superiority, so what is an enactment?
 Previously I raised a point of order on which the Chairman was very helpful. What happens if the provisions conflict with the European convention on human rights? Frankly, the one thing that worries me is secrecy and voting. What do we do if we find that an order conflicts with the convention? Which has superiority? What about European law? One thing that I have been obsessed with over the years—hearing about all the European treaties coming through—is how they have superiority. It is said time and time again that European law is superior to that of the House of Commons. If we find that an order conflicts with the convention or with European legislation, does it apply and which has superiority? Am I right in my interpretation of subsection (1)(b)? I hope that the 
 Minister will say whether an order would be superior only to laws or whether it would be superior to the convention and to European law as well.

David Wilshire: I want mainly to speak to amendment No. 22, but your guidance would be helpful, Mr. Cook, because developing the arguments about it would probably move us into a stand part debate. I do not know whether you would rather have all the contributions in one go or deal with the matter and then come back to stand part.

Frank Cook: Let us clear the air.

David Wilshire: Fine, that is very helpful, Mr. Cook.
 I always enter into such debates in Standing Committees by entering various caveats, but it becomes clear over time why that is necessary. I start by saying that I am not a lawyer and therefore cannot bring a legal mind to the problem. All that I can do is try to bring a bit of common sense. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath is right to suggest that the provisions are gobbledygook, and I hope that the Minister will say why it is necessary to have gobbledygook. It is always handy if ordinary people like me can pick up legislation and make sense of it. Some justification for this rubbish must be forthcoming before we can accept that it is necessary. 
 It is not quite that which concerns me now, however. Subsection (1)(b) uses the words 
''in accordance with such provision made by order under section 2''.
 I then turn to clause 2, which is about the pilot order and says: 
''If the Secretary of State makes an order under section 1 . . . he must also make an order under this section''.
 The thing that baffles me as a layman is that clause 1 says that the Secretary of State ''may'' make an order 
''in the manner described in the order''
 that he is just making, and then says that that must be done 
''in accordance with such provision made by order under section 2''.
 I am baffled because it will be possible to make an order under clause 2 only if an order has been made under clause 1, so the clause 2 order will be subsequent to the clause 1 order. Yet it will not be possible to make an order under clause 1 without reference to something that it will not yet have been possible to do—no order will have been made in the first place. It is mystifying. I am interested in exactly the point made by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome, although it may be a matter for the clause stand part debate. Why must there be two separate orders? 
 I imagine that if two orders are made, they must be made one after the other. Two things cannot be done at the same time. Even lawyers cannot do two things at once, so one order will be made after the other. In that case, it seems absurd to provide in the order that is made first, ''You can't do the first thing until you have done the second thing; you can't do the second thing until you have done the first thing.'' If a layman can see the confusion there, I am amazed that the highly paid lawyers and civil servants and the absurdly higher paid Ministers who take taxpayers' money to make sense of these provisions come before us with a 
 conundrum that cannot be followed. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain the inexplicable. 
 I wonder why it is necessary for clause 2(1) to provide that the Secretary of State 
''must also make an order''
 and not, as amendment No. 22 would provide, that he ''may'' do so. Clause 1(1)(a) states that the Secretary of State may make an order 
''in the manner described in the order''.
 It seems to me that all the power necessary to say whatever needs to be said is contained in that provision: he may do it in the manner described in the order. Why, if that is so, is the word ''must'' needed? The first instance is not needed, if the Secretary of State ''must'' do things all over again. Surely to goodness, we should not say the same thing twice. Clause 1 provides for all the powers in clause 2. 
 If it proves helpful for the Secretary of State to make things a bit clearer by saying something else, let him do so, but I should have thought that the relevant provision should state that he ''may'' do so if he wants to, rather than that he ''must''. If he must make matters clear in clause 2, that makes nonsense of clause 1, which provides that he must spell them out. 
 The more I look at the Bill, the more I go round in circles; perhaps I have managed to persuade you, Mr. Cook, and the Committee about the silliness of the provisions. If anyone is tempted to take the view that I am talking nonsense, I am doing so only because I am describing what the Bill says. What is before us is nonsense, and I hope that the Minister can dig himself out of the hole that he has got himself into.

Christopher Leslie: It may be useful if I explain why we have provided in the Bill for a two-order process: a main order under clause 1 and a second, piloting order under clause 2. Both amendments—and amendment No. 22 in particular—would remove the requirement for a piloting order.
 The Secretary of State is currently consulting the Electoral Commission on the wider issues, and would make a main order after the consultation, setting out the region, regions or nations in which new voting techniques would be piloted. The main order would broadly set out the conduct of elections: whether they would be carried out by all-postal means, electronic voting or other means. After a decision to proceed, a supplementary piloting order would deal with the detailed provisions necessary to give effect to the principles of the main order. There will be more consultation with the Electoral Commission and others about the relevant mechanisms. 
 I sometimes think that no matter how hard the Government try, we cannot win with the Opposition on some issues. We have settled on the process in the Bill precisely because we wanted an opportunity for parliamentary scrutiny of the choice of region, regions or nations in the main order. The main order is, in effect, the headline that makes it clear that one, two or three regions have been selected. We have provided for 
 that to come back to Parliament for agreement by affirmative resolution. 
 Usually, in the case of local piloting, with which we are familiar, such mechanisms exist without provision for that degree of parliamentary scrutiny. This is a concession that reflects the strong views expressed by many in both Houses of Parliament, not least the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place, which has often expressed strong views about certain matters being subject to positive resolution procedure. We felt that the provision would be of benefit and would be welcomed. I am sorry that it does not appear to have been.

David Wilshire: If I understand the Minister correctly, he is asking us to agree that the affirmative resolution of the House and some form of consultation is a good thing. That is so, but one of the justifications for the two separate orders is that in clause 10 we shall be told that the clause 1 orders can be subject to debate in the House but that the details—the stuff that really matters and that will give rise to concern if it is made under clause 2—will not be considered by affirmative resolution. That is only half-hearted consultation.

Christopher Leslie: I believe that this is a positive step forward for parliamentary scrutiny. As I explained to the hon. Gentleman, the law permits the Secretary of State, when piloting local innovative voting mechanisms, to make changes by order without reference to Parliament.
 If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I shall explain two specific issues. First, there is precedent: all previous mechanism orders have not been subject to Parliamentary procedure. We would not want to burden Parliament with the weight, detail and complexity of the piloting order. However, the main headlines—the regions to be selected and the nature of the pilots—should be in the main order. There is great complexity in clause 2 on the piloting order and the measures that it would contain. It would not be appropriate, in my view, for there to be an affirmative resolution procedure for those aspects to be contained in the main order.

David Heath: The Minister and I may differ on whether the detailed matters under the pilot order under clause 2 should be debated fully. However, can he tell me more about what the clause 1 order would comprise? Would it merely identify those regions or nations that are to be pilot areas, or would it also specify, in broad terms, the form of election that is to be piloted in those areas? Would it include any reference to the processes to avoid fraud that we debated on Second Reading and will debate again later in Committee?

Christopher Leslie: The processes to avoid fraud are properly dealt with in the Bill proper. We shall come to them in later clauses. I confirm, again, that we envisage the main order being the headline outlining the regions or nations that will be selected for piloting, and whether the pilot is to be all postal, or by electronic voting and so forth. That has not occurred with local piloting under previous enactments. There was a lot of detail in the second piloting order—such
 as appendices, the forms of nomination papers and requirements on the returning officers to publish statements of persons nominated—that we would not necessarily want to subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as they could be exceptionally weighty tomes.
 It is a concession that we should have a separate process to allow an opportunity to debate not just the Bill but the main order, so that all hon. Members can see—having gone through the process of consulting the Electoral Commission and considering the Secretary of State's decision as to which regions and nations should be eligible—that those matters will be contained in it.

David Wilshire: A moment ago I raised a point about both orders. The Minister has given an answer. I see that there are amendments tabled on that point under clause 10 so I shall not pursue the matter. I do not accept the Minister's argument, but we shall come back to it later, rather than pursue it now.

Christopher Leslie: I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman will pursue similar matters at a later date. He is developing Confucius-like contributions on whether an order can take place before another, or whether they both have to occur at the same time. I am sure that orders can be dealt with simultaneously or separately, and he need not worry too much about that point.

Nick Hawkins: While I am sure the Minister is right that it would be possible for two orders to be made simultaneously, would he recognise that if that is being contemplated, it would be possible to make it clear in the Bill? In the light of what I and my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) have said, will he consider that further as he continues to look at whether the drafting can be improved?

Christopher Leslie: I shall discuss with officials the sequence in which various orders will take place, but I do not believe that there is a genuine problem with the phrasing in the Bill.
 In his assertion on amendment No. 17, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath complained about the drafting of clause 1(1)(b). I do not feel that that is especially complex. I hope that my explanation of the relationship between the two orders will clarify his understanding of that. I accept that in an ideal world we would have plain English in all legislation, but it is required to be thorough and complete, and sometimes that can lead to long and complicated sentence structures. Those are a necessity, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart pointed out. 
 The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East asked whether I had any qualms about compatibility with the European convention on human rights. I have signed the statement that appears on the front of the Bill. In my view it is compatible, and I do not have any particular problems. I suspect that we shall disagree on that, but that is my understanding of the position. I do not believe that we are anticipating the piloting order to have any impact in relation to ''relevant 
 enactments''—a phrase that the hon. Gentleman raised. He wondered whether it would come up against any European directives, but we do not anticipate that, not least because electoral law is domestic law. I am afraid that in these circumstances I cannot send him down that particular avenue, but it was a perfectly reasonable point. With that explanation, I hope that the Committee will see that the amendment would not fit into the Bill, and I hope that the Committee will resist it.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the Minister for confirming, in response to my intervention, that he will take the matter back to officials. I am hopeful that he will return on Report with an improved draft. Although he prayed in aid one of the things that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart said, he did not really respond to the hon. Gentleman's initial point that the wording did not look clear. He pointed out, understandably, that there are times when legal wording must be used, but this is a pretty poor example.
 The Minister said in a sotto voce comment earlier that he had seen much worse. So have I, but saying that there are worse examples of bad drafting does not make the wording good. If every parliamentary draftsman, however much pressure they might be under, actually began with the Plain English Campaign's guide in front of them and then considered whether there were any reasons why they should use specific legal phrases as a term of art or a convoluted sentence structure—to use the Minister's phrase—the process would be the right way round. 
 I hope that we will see a clearer revised draft. In his heart of hearts, even the Minister—his sotto voce comment made this clear—knows that using ''order'' three times in clause 1, including twice in one sentence, and the interlinking to clause 2, which my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne rightly referred to, is confusing. The drafting could clearly be improved. 
 In the light of the fact that the Minister has said that he will re-examine the matter, I will not press the amendment to a vote. As my hon. Friend said, there is also the usual debate about ''may'' and ''must''. I genuinely think that we can improve clause 1. The point is fairly small, but it is what Committees are supposed to do. 
 When my hon. Friend discussed the convoluted interlinking between clauses 1 and 2, I thought that he was on to an excellent point. When he was speaking, I was reminded of what Churchill said about Russia: 
''It is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma''.
 That is a good way to describe how clauses 1 and 2 work together. I understand what the Minister says that the Government are up to, but I also understand the point made by my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment proposed: No. 18, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert 
 'and all the local authorities in the area covered by the pilot, and unless both Houses of Parliament have had an opportunity to 
consider the views of those bodies and to debate the matter.'.—[Mr. Hawkins.]
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 9.

Question accordingly negatived.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 19, in
clause 1, page 1, line 11, leave out subsection (3).
 We want to explore what I would regard at first sight—I examined the legislation several times—as extraordinary and unusual wording. In my experience, it is pretty rare for any statute to say that something is immaterial, but to say that the timing of the consultation process is immaterial is especially rare. Conservative Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) and I more than hinted at this on Second Reading—wonder whether the consultation is genuine. [Interruption.] I hope that I am not disturbing the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) too much. I am not sure whether he knocked over the water of the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—happily, he has recovered his seat.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman is not annoying me any more than he normally does.

Nick Hawkins: I always watch the entertainment between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok, whom we miss in this Committee, when they are in the Chamber, but I had not seen the double act between the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland and the hon. Member for Stroud before.
 However, now that we are all concentrating, my point was that we are genuinely worried about whether a real consultation is happening. On Second Reading last week, I expressed my party's grave suspicion that the process is all cut and dried. As I put it then, if in due course the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs in another place, or Lord Chancellor, or whatever he is calling himself by then, ends up announcing that the three pilot areas will be the three areas that Labour Back Benchers were dragooned into the Chamber to call for one after another—Scotland, the north-east and the north-west—we will know that, in the traditions of old Chicago politics, the fix has gone in.

Tom Harris: I do not want to extend the debate on this clause more than I have to, but it should be pointed out that those Scottish Members who called for Scotland to be one of the pilot regions were certainly not dragooned—far from it. Every single one of us who called for that did so purely because we felt
 very strongly that Scotland should qualify for such a pilot. It is not very fair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that we were in any way forced to make those appeals.

Nick Hawkins: I understand that the hon. Gentleman speaks for himself, as he always does extremely ably. He made an extremely good speech many parts of which, as I said when winding up, I agreed with, particularly his comments on the media. I have no doubt that he is genuine in his support for the pilot and his wish for his region, or country, to be one of the pilot areas. However, there is not unanimity of view on the legislation, as the hon. Gentleman will remember. We had passionate opposition to some aspects such as e-voting or, as he memorably put it, jiggery-pokery with gee-whizzery, from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Pollok. I am concerned that although Labour Members from the midlands were coming into the debate last week to speak against their area being a pilot, the Labour party was arguing for it where it thought that it might help its electoral cause. However, I respect the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart as he knows, and I accept his intervention entirely.
 We are concerned about any legislation that says that something is immaterial—in this case the timing of a consultation process. That is why we have sought to delete subsection (3) in its entirety. We know, as all the voluminous papers that the Electoral Commission has sent us confirm, that its consultation process is already under way. That is another example of what my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale referred to earlier: the indecent haste with which the Government are trying to ram the legislation through. 
 As an example of that, this Committee stage started within a week of Second Reading, ignoring the previous convention. With your longer experience in this House than mine, Mr. Cook, you will know that the convention, under Governments of both parties, has been always to have a clear parliamentary week after Second Reading. The Committee stage would never start until after that clear week. We should not therefore have considered starting this Committee stage until next Tuesday at the earliest. For much legislation, the period in between is much longer. It is quite common for there to be three or even four weeks after Second Reading before a Committee stage starts. But this Bill is being rushed through. 
 The Government also forced through a carry-over motion as a safety net, in case they did not get everything finished because they could not ram it through the other place, where they do not have a clear majority. They will have to try to win over the peers by force of argument, and I suspect that they will find that very difficult, particularly when peers who take an interest in such matters read the Hansard for Second Reading and the Committee. The Government will have grave problems. They probably rammed through the extraordinary carry-over procedure so that if they have not completed the Bill by the time that this Session ends, they will have a second go at it, a reserve, in another parliamentary Session. In my party's view, that is an abuse of parliamentary procedure. We 
 opposed the whole concept of carry-over when the Government introduced it and we continue to do so. I am sure that one day we will return to this Parliament operating as it traditionally has, without the Government having such things as carry-overs and all these guillotines. 
 My point is very important, and I stress that we are not probing; we feel strongly about the matter. The Electoral Commission should have had the opportunity to complete its consultation. In the immortal words of Magnus Magnusson on ''Mastermind'', ''I've started, so I'll finish.'' The commission has started, and it should have been allowed to finish before the legislation was proposed. Indeed, it would have been more logical and more consistent with what the Government said about the commission in our debates on the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. 
 The Electoral Commission should have been able to finish its consultation before the Bill was drafted, but for the Government to produce a Bill that says that it is immaterial whether the consultation takes place before or after enactment is an outrage—and I do not use the word lightly. The Minister's insouciance and charm is becoming well known. His is the acceptable face of constitutional outrage. He was doubtless given his present post so that he could act the part of the smiling assassin in the Commons, as does his noble Friend, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, in the other place. However, despite the Minister's insouciant smile and pleasant manner, he cannot disguise the fact that it is a constitutional outrage. 
 I asked the House of Commons Library researchers, to whom all hon. Members are enormously indebted, to find out what had been said about the Electoral Commission's role during the early part of 2001 in debates about the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. The Library sent me a briefing note with some extracts from Hansard. I was reminded that back in the good old days, the House sat for its traditional hours and until all the debates were over. I had the opportunity to speak in one of those debates. 
 At 11.58 pm on 8 January 2001, we were discussing how the Electoral Commission would operate. Among other things, I said: 
''The Opposition have continually raised issues relating to the Act and its operation, and questions remain about the commission's membership.''
 The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), as usual, spoke at much greater length than most other hon. Members. Indeed, I have remarked before to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome that we should have a special time allowance—the Southwark, North and Bermondsey allowance—for such debates. Later in the same debate, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that 
''questions concern its practical functioning from now on.''—[Official Report, 8 January 2001; Vol. 360, c. 834–838.]
 In a memorable intervention in that debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) described some of the provisions as ''stinking fish''. 
 If any of us had known that, only two years later, we would be faced with a Bill that said that, although the Electoral Commission was consulting on the matter, it would be immaterial whether the consultation had taken place before or after enactment, the House would have been staggered. If any of us had suspected that something like that might be contemplated, a Minister would have been put up to say, ''That will never happen.'' We did not raise that suspicion because we did not think that things would be quite that bad. However, I am in no doubt that if the House, including many Government Back Benchers, had been told that the Government would one day introduce such a clause, it would have been a matter of great concern to both Houses.

Pete Wishart: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that the Electoral Commission's role is so crucial that if it is not properly consulted before the Bill is enacted, not only Members but all who are involved in the debate will lose confidence in the powers being put through?

Nick Hawkins: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes these matters very seriously. He is absolutely right. Unfortunately, important issues that come up in Committee are rarely covered properly in the media. It is clear from our exchanges on Second Reading that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart and I share similar views about the media's often malign role in debasing the level of political debate. That role is not necessarily in support of one party or another but simply debases the way that Parliament is seen in the eyes of the public. It has probably played a role in lower turnouts.
 I often feel that if the media covered our Committee proceedings better, the public would not only have a higher regard for Parliament, but they would understand important issues such as this. Unfortunately most of the public will probably never know what the Government are proposing here. Opposition Members will do our best to alert the media and the public at large to what the Government are up to here. The hon. Member for North Tayside is spot on. If the public realised that this sort of thing was being contemplated or proposed by the Government, they could lose faith in the whole way that the Electoral Commission's work is done.

Peter Duncan: Has my hon. Friend noticed that not one single Labour Back Bencher has intervened to question the critical role that the Electoral Commission has in this Bill? Does he share my view that that is very significant?

Nick Hawkins: It is significant, but we may yet hear from some courageous Labour Members that they share my concerns. They may be keeping their powder dry for their speeches on the amendment. Of course, if they share our concerns, they may vote with us. We will certainly press the matter. I hope that the Minister will say that, on reflection, it was quite wrong for the Government to put in a subsection saying that it is
 immaterial whether the consultation was carried out before or after the Bill is enacted.
 I should be delighted if the Minister were so persuaded by my speech that he would withdraw the whole Bill and start again after the Electoral Commission consultation is published. I fear that he will not do that. I feel strongly about this. I am glad that the hon. Member for North Tayside agrees with us. I hope that the Government, even if they ram the subsection through today, will not try to retain it when the Bill proceeds to another place because noble Lords and Ladies would be very unhappy. I suspect that it will not be included in the Bill when it is enacted.

David Heath: I, too, have concerns about the consultation process but they are not the same as those expressed by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath. I have my concerns about the timetable. The Minister is aware of that, because I have already made that point plain. We are enacting legislation in unseemly haste. This issue should have been considered for much longer if we were to consider it properly. The amendment would render illegitimate the consultations that are already under way with the Electoral Commission. That seems a retrograde step. We need more consultation not less. It seems an extraordinary position to take.
 I am unhappy about the strange relationship that is developing between the Electoral Commission and the Government. It is not clear who is leading the process, who is putting forward the proposals and how the whole thing is constructed. We are told that the Government intend to have three pilot regions. That is not a recommendation from the Electoral Commission. It was simply told that that is what the Government want, and it is not considering that. Yet that proposal does not appear in the Bill. 
 Nothing in clause 1 says that there shall be three pilot regions. It simply hangs in space as a Government intention that is not to be enacted and that is to be dealt with by secondary legislation. That seems entirely inappropriate. The Electoral Commission made absolutely plain the limits of what it is allowed to consider. The Government have not asked it to recommend the detailed form of the all-postal or electronic pilot schemes. Why on earth not? The purpose of the commission is to carry out audits, take considerations of that kind into account and make proposals to the Government for eventual legislation. 
 The Government have already decided what they want to do. They have passed to the Electoral Commission a remit and asked it to rubber-stamp it so that it is acceptable and so that it makes the Government impervious to criticism that they have not consulted. However, they have also said that the commission should not expect consultation, as the basic decision has already been taken. As I said, that is an inappropriate way of doing business, and I deplore it. 
 I have a great deal of respect for the Electoral Commission and its work. The consultation that it has 
 undertaken is of importance, and the consultation that it will take following enactment of the Bill will be equally important. Both should be taken into account. That is why I do not accept the premise of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that, for some reason, the consultation that will have taken place up to the time at which the Bill receives Royal Assent is irrelevant. 
 If the Government have already taken decisions on matters that are absolutely crucial to the operation of the pilot schemes, I wish that they would make them explicit in the Bill rather than hiding behind a cloak of anonymity, as it were, in suggesting that the Electoral Commission is considering such matters when, in fact, it is not. It is specifically excluded from considering them, as requested by the Government.

Annette Brooke: As this is the first time that I have spoken in the Committee, may I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Cook?
 I wish to endorse my hon. Friend's comments. I notice in subsection (3) the word ''such'', which I believe needs a cross-reference to details about the consultation. I am concerned about the wording in the Bill, because it is absolutely clear from the material that we have received from the Electoral Commission that it works from parameters fixed by the Government, yet those parameters are not stated. Therefore, there is no exact explanation of the word ''such''.

Christopher Leslie: Is it not entirely clear that subsection (3) comes after subsection (2), which discusses the sort of consultation about which we are talking?

Annette Brooke: Perhaps I should explain to the Minister where my confusion lies. I cannot see an explanation in subsection (2) of the actual process or parameters of consultation. It simply uses the words ''first consults''. However, the Government are limiting the consultation. It has not been open to everyone who is involved but has been carried out within defined limits. I simply suggest that the information should be in the Bill. Perhaps the hon. Member for Surrey Heath might have less trouble with subsection (3) if it were a little more specific.

Christopher Leslie: It appears that the intention of the amendment, if it is not a probing amendment, is to delay the process by which consultation of the Electoral Commission could take place until after the Bill receives Royal Assent. I assure hon. Members that there is nothing improper or untoward in the clause.
 The Secretary of State has the power under section 6(2) the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 to 
''(a) review, and 
 (b) submit a report to the Secretary of State on, 
 such matter or matters . . . as the Secretary of State may specify.''
 The request for the commission to consult on pilot regions or nations has been made under that legislation. In order to be explicit that consultations can legitimately occur at this stage and also to prevent future challenges, subsection (3) makes it absolutely clear beyond doubt that consultations are allowable. 
 If I were to place a malign motivation on the Opposition, which I am loth to do, I would suggest that this is a wrecking amendment. We need to consult the Electoral Commission now. Hon. Members know that the elections that we are discussing are due to take place in June. We must ensure that we can proceed with ample time to obtain the considered views of the commission. 
 To leave consultation until after Royal Assent would be to allow too little time to obtain advice, choose the regions or nations and give them a full opportunity to prepare for piloting. We have proceeded with common sense to ensure that it is beyond doubt that consultations with the commission will be allowed. That is why the provision is there.

Nick Hawkins: The Minister makes a semi-accusation. He says that he is loth to do so, but makes it anyway by saying that amendment No. 19 is a wrecking amendment. We have not sought to delete subsection (2), which states:
''The Secretary of State must not make an order under this section unless he first consults the Electoral Commission.''
 If we had sought to delete subsections (2) and (3), he could reasonably suggest that we were trying to wreck the Bill, but amendment No. 18, on which we have voted, states that we want to extend subsection (2). We did not seek to delete it, and we accept the idea of consultation, but we have made it clear that the Government are rushing the Bill through. The Minister says that he wants it enacted before next summer's elections. That is unnecessary, so why not leave it, have a proper consultation and finish it?

Frank Cook: That intervention was rather long.

Christopher Leslie: Members will be familiar with the dates of the elections to which the Bill relates. They are the local elections and the European parliamentary elections in June. It is self-evident that we want to give any regions and nations chosen for piloting ample opportunity to prepare. We must ensure that they are selected in good time, so that they have time to prepare. In order correctly to undertake the selection process, we must give the Electoral Commission an opportunity to comment. That is why it is undertaking its own consultation process. It will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State, who will then decide the regions or nations eligible for piloting.

Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister think that it is wise to go ahead without the evidence from the Commission? We have had the paper from the Electoral Reform Society, which I hope he has considered. It is an independent, worthwhile organisation that is not trying to push a line for anyone, and it concludes:
''The Electoral Reform Society does not believe that pilots in either all-posting or e-voting in the 2004 elections would be beneficial.''
 The report provides all the evidence. It says that it will be nonsense, rubbish and that e-mail, for example, will cost a fortune and will not work. I do not know if other Members have seen the report, but when the Electoral Reform Society says that such piloting 
 should not go ahead, is it wise to go ahead without the views of the Commission?

Christopher Leslie: The Bill is a framework for choosing and selecting the regions or nations eligible for piloting. It does not specify the regions or nations that will definitely be involved. We have discussed how the main order-making process that will select a region or nation and how the Electoral Commission, which is the proper independent body to undertake a thorough survey of the country's views, will help to inform Ministers.

John Robertson: Will the Minister provide an explanation of why the Opposition parties want to keep turnout down? They talked about a fix earlier. Why would anybody want to disfranchise the electorate? We are trying to encourage people to vote.

Christopher Leslie: That is a mystery. We talked earlier about an enigma in a conundrum, wrapped in a mystery, which neatly encapsulates the Opposition's view. I do not know why anyone would want to inhibit more convenient, accessible voting. However, that is not the subject of the amendment and you would call us to order if we strayed further from it, Mr. Cook. The amendment provides that no consultation would be permissible until after Royal Assent, which would be too restrictive. It would wreck the opportunities for regions and nations to have pilots, which would be wrong.

Pete Wishart: I rebut the uncharacteristically unfair remarks from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland. We do not want to take that any further. What if, after consultation with the Electoral Commission, we came up with a significant line of argument that went against what the Government propose in the Act? Would the Government then revisit it? Surely, it makes sense to ensure that the views of the Electoral Commission are taken on board before any measure is enacted.

Christopher Leslie: I did not include the Scottish National party in the comments I made about the Conservative party. They will be reserved for special comment at another time. The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. Of course, we should listen to the Electoral Commission's advice; that is precisely why we want to make it possible for consultation to take place either before or after the enactment of this measure. To provide that consultation is not possible before enactment is too rigid. This capricious little amendment does not contribute anything useful to the proposal.

Nick Hawkins: I thank the Minister for finally giving way. I shall respond to the slurs cast by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland in the debate, but not in this intervention.
 When my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East spoke earlier about the Electoral Reform Society, I believe that I heard the Minister saying, sotto voce, to his officials that he did not have that ERS submission. If he has not yet seen it, I ask him to comment on the fact that I drew his attention to it in our abortive and truncated sitting on Tuesday. As I said that the submission arrived in my post on Tuesday morning, it would have been wise of the 
 Minister, and the Government, to read it so that he could respond more effectively to my hon. Friend.

Christopher Leslie: Of course, the Government are aware of several representations made by different organisations. Although I may not have a piece of paper before me at present, we are fully appraised of all issues that come to the Government's attention. However, the point remains that the amendment would prevent consultation taking place before Royal Assent, which would effectively scupper an opportunity for the Electoral Commission to make recommendations to the Government and enable the Government to choose regions in good time so that they can prepare for the proper, comprehensive operation of a working electoral pilot. No hon. Member would want the pilots to fail; therefore, we should allow consultation to take place both before or after Royal Assent. I urge the Committee to reject the amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I made it clear at the outset that we felt strongly about the amendment and I shall press it to a Division. However, before I do so I want to respond briefly to a couple of things that the Minister said, and to the helpful comments of the hon. Member for North Tayside who spoke for the Scottish National party.
 I rebut the slur levelled by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland in an intervention. Conservative Members want voting to return to the higher figures that are set out in the Library briefings for the Bill. In every election since the second world war, from 1945 up to and including 1997, whatever the results, the turnout in the general election has been more than 70 per cent., and the average has been roughly 75 per cent. The first time since the second world war that a general election turnout dropped dramatically was in 2001. The main reason for that, in my view and that of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart, was the cynicism engendered by the media. Another factor was that, because of Government gerrymandering since 1997, a lot of voters not only lost faith in the Government, which is why there was a collapse in the Labour vote in the Labour heartlands, but felt that the political process had been undermined. 
 It is not in our interests to disfranchise people. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone, many other Conservative speakers and I made our stance clear on Second Reading. We do not believe that security aspects of postal or e-voting, which will be covered by later clauses and groups of amendments—I will not anticipate those arguments because I would be out of order to do so—have been properly dealt with. Far from wanting to disfranchise people, we are trying to ensure proper security. 
 We also feel that the consultation should be allowed to finish before a Bill is put forward, a point that was well encapsulated by the hon. Member for North Tayside. I am a great admirer of the Runrig music that he and his friends performed, and I agree with almost everything that he has said so far. That does not reflect approval from Conservative Members for the general policies of the Scottish National party, but it is useful 
 to have someone from one of the minor parties strongly supporting us in making points that comprehensively answered the Minister's comments. As the hon. Member for North Tayside said, a Bill should not be put forward before sensible consultation has been reported. That is ridiculous. It is not a case of putting the cart before the horse, but of not even having a horse. A cart without a horse is not much use, not even to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Anniesland.

John Robertson: The hon. Gentleman has not done the election prospects of the hon. Member for North Tayside any good by backing him. Members of the Scottish National party are well known in Scotland as tartan Tories anyway.
 The hon. Gentleman always wants to re-write history. Part of the reason for the low turnout was that there was such a poor Opposition. When there were contests in constituencies, the Labour vote increased. In constituencies with a large Labour majority, the turnout was low.

Nick Hawkins: Unfortunately, I do not have my copy of Dod's Parliamentary Companion, so I cannot discuss the hon. Gentleman's seat. However, on election night in 2001, there was a huge fall in Labour majorities in some of the safest seats across the country. That was because Labour voters had lost faith, and that was one of the reasons why the turnout collapsed so much.
Mr. Harris rose—

Frank Cook: Order. I fear that we are straying from the point. The amount of time to be spent on these deliberations has already been determined. How that time is utilised is entirely up to hon. Members. Remarks must be pertinent to the line-by-line scrutiny of the legislation.

Nick Hawkins: In deference to your ruling, Mr. Cook, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart has indicated that he no longer wishes to intervene. Therefore, I can bring my remarks to a close.

Teddy Taylor: The Minister has not had the chance to read the Electoral Reform Society's report, so he may not realise that it says that an e-voting pilot is unlikely to bring any significant rise in turnout, is vastly expensive, and relies on unverified software. For those reasons, it recommends strongly against e-voting pilots in 2004. On that basis, would it not be wise to consult the Electoral Commission before proceeding?

Nick Hawkins: I agree with my hon. Friend. There will be extensive debates about the details of what the Electoral Reform Society and other organisations, some of which I quoted on Second Reading, think about e-voting. That is relevant to the question whether the consultation should have finished before the Bill was put forward.
 I have made my case. Subsection (3) is an outrageous way to treat the Electoral Commission, and I should therefore like to put the amendment to a vote. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 4, Noes 11.

Question accordingly negatived.

David Heath: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in
clause 1, page 1, line 14, leave out from '2004' to end of line 15.

Frank Cook: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 46, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 18, leave out from 'election' to end.
 Amendment No. 21, in 
clause 1, page 1, line 19, leave out subsection (5).
 Amendment No. 47, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
 Amendment No. 1, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add— 
 '(c) Scotland.'.
 Amendment No. 20, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add— 
 '(c) any two regions with a common boundary.'.
 Amendment No. 48, in 
clause 1, page 2, line 3, at end add— 
 '(c) any region which does not meet the criteria identified by the Electoral Commission for inclusion as a pilot region'.
 Amendment No. 39, in 
clause 9, page 5, line 6, leave out from '(c.2)' to end of line 7.

David Heath: This important group covers several crucial issues and it may take a little time to explain the arguments.
 Amendments Nos. 45 and 46 would take out the reference to a specific region, which would make the pilot scheme the European Parliament elections in 2004 for the whole country. The reason why I put forward the amendments for consideration is twofold. First, I want to explore the reasons for not having a national election to the European Parliament on the new basis, if that is what the Government intend. Secondly, I want to explore when a pilot is not a pilot, which is when it is of such a size as to be a significant part of the total electorate. 
 My principled view is that it is not right for part of the electorate to use a different system to elect their Members of the European Parliament from that which pertains in the rest of the same country. There is an easy and obvious riposte to that, which is that we have a different system in Northern Ireland. I accept that, but there are also special reasons for having a different 
 system there. In general, however, having different systems of voting in different parts of the same country for the same election should be avoided unless there are good reasons for doing otherwise.

Tom Harris: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will clarify the argument. My understanding is that although the pilot will mean that some people in certain parts of the United Kingdom will vote by post, the system of elections to the European Parliament would be exactly the same everywhere in the UK—that is, the list system. Therefore, the system in 2004 will be no different from that used in the general election, when some people voted by post, others voted by proxy and most voted personally at polling stations.

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right—up to a point. He is right that whether we use a list system, a single transferable vote system or a first-past-the-post system, the electoral system will remain unchanged, and that therefore all parts of the country will be on the same basis.
 However, there is a difference in the mechanics of the system; otherwise, there would be no point in running the pilots. There is a difference between elections that are held on an all-postal basis, on a postal and electronic basis, or using the current system, with the majority voting in person and having the opportunity to use a postal vote. If there were no difference at all, the exercise would be pointless, but we start from the premise that there is a difference, and that it is likely to affect turnout and voting patterns in some parts of the country, which in turn will have a knock-on effect on the candidates who are elected in those areas. 
 There is a principle involved, although it is not one for which I would die in a ditch. For a single election there should be a consistent method of voting.

David Drew: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, as someone who is in favour of decentralisation, as I am, is not in favour of examining ways in which we can introduce electoral reform, if this is a mode of electoral reform. The only way that the success of electoral participation can be measured is by some level of experimentation. I am concerned that if such experimentation does not take place, new models for encouraging people to vote cannot be tested.

David Heath: I am not against the principle of pilot schemes, because there are strong arguments for running them. Nor am I averse, as I have made plain, to novel methods of voting. I have had some experience of that in my constituency, and my view is that it improved turnout and people were satisfied with the outcome.
 In general, until now the pilot schemes have operated in whole local authority areas, although I am told that there were some exceptions to that, of which I was not aware, in which trials took place in specific wards within local authority areas. However, in general, a single local authority has considered whether it wished to run a pilot and made proposals to the Government and, if those proposals were agreed, the pilot was run in that whole local authority area or the wards in it. That is the right way to do it. My quarrel is with the proposal that a large tranche of the 
 country, but not all of it, should adopt this system at an election for a single body—the European Parliament. 
 I could perhaps accept the proposal more easily if the system were to be adopted in only one region and we were to use that as an experiment. However, I understand that the Government are proposing—although that is not explicit in the Bill—that three regions will participate, out of the 10 European electoral areas for the UK, excluding Northern Ireland, for reasons that we understand. A significant part of the UK will therefore be involved, meaning that the principle of trying a small-scale experiment first and then expanding it if it works, will not apply. It will be a huge experiment in a large part of the country—the population that will be affected by it is three times that of Scotland. Once an experiment is being conducted on that scale, it would be better to 
 run the whole election under a new system and to assess the result. At least there would then be consistency throughout the country and the result could be compared with previous elections to see whether there appeared to be a significant change. We would then have the perfect opportunity to see whether there is a differential between different parts of the country—different because of their rural or urban natures or because of the number of local authorities involved. That would be a more significant experiment—in the words of the hon. Member for Stroud—than the one in the Government's proposals. 
Mr. Harris rose—
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at fifteen minutes past Two o'clock.